relationship between the witnesses and also to show they have not spoken with each other about what occurred. they have not spoken to each other about the substance of what ms. lopez told them. chairperson hur: how does it show that? >> that is what it says. i did not need to have a sharp response. chairperson hur: i was focusing on the other portion. but what about the other portions of paragraph 19? >> part of me wanted to include everything that might be brought up on cross-examination

including this idea, have you spoken with other witnesses? so that is why it is included. is there for a complete picture to evaluate the credibility of the witness. chairperson hur: i'm sharing your concern with respect to paragraph 19, 25 through the end of the sentence. in fact the last sentence of paragraph 20, should be included. commissioner renne: i agree. chairperson hur: is there dissent from the commission with respect to paragraph 19, 25

through the end of the sentence on page 6, line 1? >> would then include exhibit two? chairperson hur: yes. the objection is sustained. paragraph 20. my recommendation was to overrule the objection. does anyone have a dissenting view?

the objection is overruled. i think the last issue we have with respect to the sheriff's objections, the video. do i have that right? we have received a brief recently from the mayor on this issue. have you had an opportunity to review its? >> i have not. i do not recall if it came in yesterday or the night before,

but i have not had a chance to review it and respond. i would like the opportunity to give you something in writing to analyze the issue. chairperson hur: do you have any objection? >> these objections were supposed to be made. it is the same issues. i do not see how they are any different serious one can look at the did you make that evaluation and i think the arguments are the same about excited utterances. chairperson hur: would you stipulate to us excluding your briefs? >> no -- chairperson hur: we did not authorize the brief, either. >> that is true but i do not see how council is handicapped in any way by not having the opportunity to brief this issue

because the same thing we have been discussing. if the commission wishes to give them the opportunity, and that is fine but i do not see how the legal difference -- the legal issues are different. >> i would be inclined to provide the sheriff with an opportunity to review the issue. is there a dissenting view from the commissioners? >> has this issue been briefed both in the criminal aspect and in the civil motion that was filed? whether or not the video was to be admissible? >> i am not sure if it was brief but i know it was -- i believe there were. but not by me. number two, with respect to the

civil motion, i am unclear as to what you are referring. >> wasn't there a motion brought by somebody, maybe miss lopez, to have her privacy rights protected and not allow the video to be released and not allowed to be made part of the records? >> i think that is correct but that is a different inquiry to its admissibility here. if your question is on the issue of how these issues been decided already such that you do not need to decide them, i would am notthat in the negative. suggesting that but in whatever brief you file i am suggesting that you tell us why we should

not follow whatever rulings have been made. why this circumstance is different than was true in the previous hearings where there were attempts made to exclude this video. if it was going to be excluded in the criminal case, which is a much higher standard for amiss and -- admissibility, i would like to see what reason there should be why we should take a position that says even though some other court has said it is admissible, we should not admit it. >> i would probably be telling you that was incorrectly decided. but i feel -- i understand this issue. the only reason i asked for more time is if you were going to consider this brief that was

filed by the mayor. a i just wanted a chance to look at what they're saying. if you want to strike that, i will argue it right now. commissioner renne: i am happy to let you file, when you do it, address that question. >> understood. chairperson hur: we're not talking about a piece of evidence, a person having to come in and can be shown as -- if it were admitted. the additional time is not a problem and i would like to give the sheriff an opportunity to brief it if he chooses. >> i do not know how many of the members sought it, but i think he would be hard-pressed to make a ruling as to its admissibility at this point in time. >> we brought a way to play the

video but you need to see it weather to determine to admit it. i think it is an important part of the ruling to observe the demeanor of the witness. chairperson hur: when can we see the brief? >> how long before the next hearing? would a day or to be sufficient? -- two be sufficient? chairperson hur: i think that would suffice. commissioner renne: i'm going to be easy on this one. that is fine. chairperson hur: that would be the 26th.

>> i will file something. chairperson hur: we will deal with it then. it sounds like the parties would like the commissioners to review the video. my suggestion is that the commissioners do so on their own time. i do not think we need to set up whatever audiovisual to show it for us to out -- evaluate whether it should be admissible. how will we get a copy? >> i have sent seven copies. they have delivered them. chairperson hur: we have them? ok. it sounds like i will be able to figure out a way.

next we should not be -- address the objections submitted by the sheriff. mr. keith, i understand you have no objection. that is still the case? >> yes. chairperson hur: ok. what about -- >> i have three objections.

i can make them all or early -- orally. chairperson hur: ok. >> if you look at the fifth paragraph of the declaration, and beginning i never suspected, there is a sentence beginning with the word " usually." we would move to exclude that for a lack of foundation and it is getting toward an expert opinion. commissioner renne: which paragraph is this? >> beginning i never suspected. five lines down you see the word usually.

chairperson hur: ending with "no." commissioner renne: i am still lost. chairperson hur: it begins with i never expected anything going -- this is mr. deleone. commissioner renne: i thought you were talking about linette. that explains it.

chairperson hur: was there anything else you wanted to say? >> the foundation appears to have been made previously when she describes her experience in caring for children.chairpersons on this? >> when you say she describes her experience caring for children, are you talking about the first sentence? >> where she says she is a child care provider. it is implied it is not just for sheriff mirkarimi and miss lopez's son. chairperson hur: are would be

inclined to sustain the objection. i think it lacks foundation in this would be more appropriate for expert testimony if it were relevant. is there a dissenting view with respect to that objection? commissioner renne: the whole paragraph? chairperson hur: "usually children have." the objection is sustained. you said you had two others? >> the next paragraph after that beginning when they were separated. that is basically a lot of statements about observations of the child's behavior after the sheriff was arrested.

>> i will submit on that. chairperson hur: i do not see how it is relevant to the task we have. are there dissenting views? what is the last objection to this? >> on the second page, the paragraph beginning "theo began" for the same reasons. concerns of the child behavior after he received the stay away order. as well as the witness's feelings and observations about

the family, which to not seem to be relevant. chairperson hur: the objection is sustained. the remainder of mr. deleon's testimony will be amended. -- omitted. is submitted written objections, mr. keith, we will deal with those. are there any others? >> no. >> as to the first objection dealing with the statement in the second paragraph, i would

argue that the foundation was not shown for the statement. if it is an opinion by the previous sentencing in which she said she has a training regarding domestic violence. moreover, i do not believe that this is an expert opinion. it appears to communicate peralta haynes' belief that she did not have to do anything for herself. she was satisfied miss lopez was not in danger. i do not think she is trying to say this is an empirical fact. this is on her -- her own perception. >> mr. keith? >> if this is only offered to show why her state of mind and why she decided to do whatever

she did, we do not have an objection for that purpose. we have an objection to it being an assessment about whether she was actually in danger. chairperson hur: i would be inclined to overrule this objection. i do not think this is being offered as an expert. it is being offered as her opinion. what value that has, there is some, -- >> we were not given on -- any of the facts on which she relied. we get none of the information. of course whatever she relied on would be here say. -- hearsay. chairperson hur: i would be inclined to allow it. questions from the commissioners? the objection is overruled. mr. kopp, do want to address the

second objections? >> yes, in the third paragraph, and leave the portion objected to was the italian sized portion that the woman responded know. -- italicized portion that the woman responded no. that shows that she had not contacted any agencies or tried to connect eliana with them. but it could come in for a purpose of contextualizing the conversation between that woman and miss haynes and what she said -- why she said what she said.

chairperson hur: mr. keith's? -- keith? >> this cannot be shown for the truth of the matter. i have doubts about what kind of context it is because the next speaker was miss madison. i do not think it serves any purpose. chairperson hur: this is a conversation that is going to be, it is clearly at issue between miss haynes and miss madison and i would be inclined to allow it. that objection is overruled. the third objection >.

>> i concede this cannot show miss lopez had been not -- had not been able to contact the sheriff. but i think when the sentence is red, the only fair import is that it explains why peralta haynes called ross mirkarimi. she says i called him because and then goes on with the portion they are objecting to. we do not seek to admit it for that purpose. >> we do not object to the statement because that explains why she made the call. we object to additional information about what she had been doing.

that is hearsay and inadmissible. i do not think there is any other evidence that would allow for that to come in. chairperson hur: i would solicit the views of my fellow commissioners on this objection. >> we have allowed the other evidence to come in under the same caveat so we should allow this as well from the sarah sighed. -- sheriff's side. chairperson hur: the objection is overruled. sheriff's declaration.

give this a moment here. -- us a moment here. commissioner renne: i take it the subpoena has been issued for ms. haynes? chairperson hur: it sounds like she is saying she is not available until july. we should discuss scheduling as well as soon as we're done with this. we should address when she is going to be able to testify. the objections to the sheriff's declaration. is there anything else to consider? mr. kopp, will you be addressing this?

>> perhaps i missed something that i did not see objections to his specific a state -- specific statements. >> the sheriff had filed his declaration late so we filed our deck -- objections. chairperson hur: the first objection. >> i do not think this is an opinion. it is a statement of fact. i feel he can offer in this testimony.

>> the charges were dismissed as part of a global plea-bargain. that is different from charge is being dropped. -- charges being dropped. i think what happens at the sentencing speaks for itself and this in jackson and needed ambiguity. 0-- injects unneeded ambiguity. chairperson hur: that objection is overruled. the second objection. >> in terms of the mayor not telling sheriff mirkarimi why he suspended him, we think it is relevant. there was not a legally valid reason for the suspension but it was an improper reason. that could go to the mayor's

bias. >> our objection on this was relevant. there is not a due process claim about whether there is an interest in getting paid or anything like that. this is not relevant. the communications with the mayor and the nature of them, and even if it may go to the bias, did the sheriff thing to the mayor was unfair? clearly he does. i do not think it undermines regarding the validity of the charges. the charges rise and fall on the facts not on what was going on in the mayor's head. >> what is the purpose of the mayor's declaration?

>> it was requested. chairperson hur: the mayor basically said -- as seems there is some relevance and the basis of the decision. i think the share should be committed to examine the mayor on whether what that was the basis, and not being told the charges, i think that is potentially relevant to that state of mind. >> we dispute the facts of what happened in the conversation between the mayor and the sheriff. putting that aside, we submitted a declaration because we were requested to by the commission and we thought the commission wanted to know what the mayors

reasons or for bringing the charges. his reasons are not important but he has some personal knowledge of a standard of -- public official and the standards. why the particular things that motivated him, i do not think those are relevant. chairperson hur: first of all, and i have been wrong before, my understanding was he was on your witness list and we thought that based on the statements provided for what the witnesses would say he would be relevant. >> we put him on our list after the commission indicated they wanted to hear from him. certainly our feeling was they indicated they wanted to hear from